Why do many Americans believe in God?

[spidergoat]

The question of whether there is a god.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The question of whether there is a god.

How could science (i'm assuming modern science) answer the question as to whether there is a God?

jan.

 

[spinner981]

Yet another example of special pleading. How is it not a "science situation"?

When you demand empirical observation of supernatural events/existences, science goes out the window because it only deals in the physical realm, not metaphysical.

 

[Daecon]

Then why should anyone believe that the supernatural actually exists?

 

[spinner981]

Then why should anyone believe that the supernatural actually exists?

Because it's necessary for the origin of our natural universe. It couldn't have been a natural origin after all. We know there exists something that is supernatural, it just boils down to the question of who or what. I believe it is God.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't posit a supernatural being to explain things in the universe.

God is pure spirit.

Self contradiction.

(Well, unless the god you believe in explains nothing in the universe. Which is kind of what the rest of us have been saying all along.)

 

[spinner981]

Self contradiction.

(Well, unless the god you believe in explains nothing in the universe. Which is kind of what the rest of us have been saying all along.)

Whether you accept a particular explanation or not doesn't necessarily make said explanations contradictory to reality.

 

[Jeeves]

Because it's necessary for the origin of our natural universe. It couldn't have been a natural origin after all. We know there exists something that is supernatural, it just boils down to the question of who or what. I believe it is God.

The unnatural creates the natural.... because..... for.... by.... how....?
Erm. Does any of this have any bearing whatever on anything whatever?

 

[spinner981]

The unnatural creates the natural.... because..... for.... by.... how....?
Erm. Does any of this have any bearing whatever on anything whatever?

If the only thing that is natural is the natural universe, and it must have had a cause, then the only explanation is for the cause to be supernatural. The specifics are what are to be debated on.

 

[Daecon]

If the only thing that is natural is the natural universe, and it must have had a cause, then the only explanation is for the cause to be supernatural. The specifics are what are to be debated on.

So... an invisible pink unicorn? A flying spaghetti monster? A giant scarab beetle?

 

[spinner981]

So... an invisible pink unicorn? A flying spaghetti monster? A giant scarab beetle?

My posts were in response to you saying this: "Then why should anyone believe that the supernatural actually exists?"

The supernatural exists. The nature of said supernatural existence is a different argument.

 

[Daecon]

Can you prove that the supernatural exists?

If not, then why should anyone believe you?

All you're doing is making a "Because I said so!" claim.

 

[spinner981]

Can you prove that the supernatural exists?

If not, then why should anyone believe you?

All you're doing is making a "Because I said so!" claim.

Premise: The natural universe has a beginning.

If we believe that all things in the natural universe runs off of cause and effect, that means that the origin of the universe would be the effect of some cause. Since the cause of the natural universe couldn't be something that existed within the natural universe itself, it must have been outside of the natural universe, ie: supernatural.

If you don't accept the premise that the universe had a beginning, then that's a different argument.

 

[Daecon]

Premise: The natural universe has a beginning.

If we believe that all things in the natural universe runs off of cause and effect, that means that the origin of the universe would be the effect of some cause. Since the cause of the natural universe couldn't be something that existed within the natural universe itself, it must have been outside of the natural universe, ie: supernatural.

If you don't accept the premise that the universe had a beginning, then that's a different argument.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

 

[spinner981]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

There is a difference between God of the gaps and the necessity of an explanation for the origin of the universe which cannot be a natural one due to the nature of nature itself. There is a difference between a supernatural origin (ie: a not natural origin) in general and an origin caused specifically by God of the Bible.

 

[James R]

Do you believe in a personal God, by which I mean a God who cares about individual human beings and who intervenes in the lives of individual human beings?

The Supreme Cause of ALL CAUSES is what it is.
The cause of all causes, personal, impersonal, perception, intelligence, logic, theism, atheism, ideas, concepts, love, hate, sandy beaches, chocolate ice cream, intention, beauty, life, death, eternal life, hellish life, planets, cosmos, creation, annihilation, ambition, ability, humanity, and the list goes on and on.

So I might summarise your answer to my questions as "No."

 

[Jan Ardena]

So I might summarise your answer to my questions as "No."

You could summarise it like that, or you could take a stab at comprehending the definition.

jan.

 

[James R]

I comprehend that you tried to dodge the question.

 

[Daecon]

Has Jan ever given a straight answer to any question?

 

[Kristoffer]

Not that I've noticed.